Ayres v. Siebel
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Mahaslta District Court. — -Hon. J. K„ Johnson, Judge.1 ■ Sinker, Davis & Co. was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Indiana. As such it contracted with the defendant firm to furnish certain machinery for a flouring mill at Oskaloosa, in this state, and put the same in' operation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mahaslta District Court. — -Hon. J. K„ Johnson, Judge.1 ■ Sinker, Davis & Co. was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Indiana. As such it contracted with the defendant firm to furnish certain machinery for a flouring mill at Oskaloosa, in this state, and put the same in' operation. The plaintiff, as trustee of such corporation, appointed by the circuit, court of Marion county, Indiana, brings this action to recover a balance of twelve hundred dollars on the contract price of forty-eight hundred dollars, to be paid for the materials and work. The issue formed'…
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
This action is brought by a trustee, but the question, as presented, includes the right of a receiver to bring such actions, which of course we are not to determine, and its only effect in the case must be limited to the influence it may have on the real question before us, and we assume that such was the intention in making it a part of the question. The text-writers upon the authority of trustees, executors, administrators and, with some exceptions, receivers, to maintain actions outside of the territorial limits of their appointment, are in substantial accord, and are to the effect that…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Bellinger v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Shloss v. Metropolitan Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Iowa & California Land Co. v. HoagCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Canfield v. ScrippsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Reed v. HollingsworthSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.